Tag Archives: DOC

The latest annual reviews of tariffs on off-the-road tires from China have resulted in changes to how much tire makers and importers will pay on the tires they import into the U.S.

In the anti-dumping investigation for the period September 2014-August 2015, the Department of Commerce (DOC) says the rate for Xuzhou Xugong Tyres Co. Ltd., (also known as Armour Rubber Co. Ltd. or Xuzhou Hanbang Tyre Co. Ltd.) should be 33.08% — that’s nearly half of what the company was assessed after the previous year’s review; then it was 65.33%.

And because Xugong was one of the primary companies the DOC investigated (the agency calls them a ‘mandatory respondent’), the drop in its rate lowers the rate of these nine other companies to the same 33.08%:

One thing that hasn’t changed is that the bulk of companies who were assessed the country-wide rate will continue to pay 105.31%.

Subsidy rates go up

As for the countervailing investigation — which covers subsidies from a foreign government that a company receives — the latest review is prompting substantial rate increases.

For Guizhou Tyre Co. Ltd., the rate is increasing from 2.52% to 34.46%. For companies not selected for an individual review the new rate of 40.24% is almost eight-times higher than the previous 5.65%.

The good news for these companies is that their rates could have been even higher. When the DOC published preliminary countervailing rates in October 2016, Guizhou’s rate was to be 38.19%, and the “others” category rate was to be 54.20%. (It’s not uncommon for the DOC to make revisions after companies provide additional data for consideration.)

Why a review?

Companies who are assessed tariffs have the right to request a review of the data once a year. The government publishes a notice in the Federal Register each month of the investigations that had been finalized in that same month in previous years, and companies have a certain amount of time to request an administrative review. Sometimes no one makes a request. In the case of the anti-dumping investigation on OTR tires from China, the 2016 review was the seventh review.

Tariffs on OTR tires from China were imposed beginning in 2008, and they were renewed in 2013. Tariffs are imposed on five-year cycles, and the next mandatory review of these tariffs is in 2018.

Titan responds

After the higher subsidy rates were published in the Federal Register this week, Titan International Inc. released a statement which included messages from Chairman Morry Taylor and CEO and President Paul Reitz.

Taylor says, “We thank the government agencies involved for their diligence in pursuing these reviews. These results confirm that imports of OTR tires from China continue to be subsidized and dumped and harm U.S. producers of OTR tires in the U.S. marketplace. I believe Titan will see a positive impact in our aftermarket business as a result of these determinations.On behalf of our shareholders and workers, we are pleased that the U.S. government’s investigations have confirmed what we are seeing in the U.S. marketplace.”

Reitz says, “These results confirm our belief that the levels of government subsidization had significantly increased and that the amount of dumping has continued. The continued monitoring by the DOC of these orders and the imposition of accurate amounts of countervailing and antidumping duties is an important step in restoring conditions of fair trade. We will continue to work with the DOC to insure that any and all subsidization and dumping by Chinese producers is met by appropriate duty levels. We have been fighting and will continue to fight against the unfair trade practices of any U.S. trading partners.”

Like this:

The U.S. Department of Commerce (DOC) has admitted errors in its tariff calculations on two truck and bus tire manufacturers in China, and as a result has lowered the rates Double Coin Holdings Ltd. and Guizhou Tyre Co. Ltd. — and all companies — will pay.

In all, the DOC made seven errors.

Both companies submitted complaints alleging the errors after the DOC announced its final tariff rates on Jan. 23.

After fixing these errors, the DOC says Double Coin’s tariff rate is decreasing from 38.61% to 20.98%. The rate for Guizhou is dropping slightly, from 65.46% to 63.34%.

Making adjustments to those specific companies also affects the rate charged to all other companies — from 52.04% to 42.16%.

The details

Here’s what happened with the Double Coin calculation. The first mistake was a basic subtraction error. The second error was in applying a currency exchange rate to an amount that had already been converted.

The Guizhou calculations are a bit more complex. One mistake stemmed from how the intercompany sales from one Guizhou subsidy were accounted for. Another error came in linking to the wrong table of data. The wrong benchmark for electricity rates at two facilities was used in calculations. The DOC also admitted it used a 2004 sales figure in a calculation compared to benefits received in 2015. And in the fifth and final error connected to Guizhou calculations, the DOC says it should have entered the actual price paid for land in one table, but instead entered benchmark prices.

The U.S. Department of Commerce (DOC) has admitted to a miscalculation in its preliminary anti-dumping tariff rate for truck and bus tires imported from China. As a result, the rates for every manufacturer and importer are increasing to 30.36%, which is nearly 10 points higher than the initial calculation.
The DOC has recalculated its preliminary anti-dumping tariff rate to account for two errors that affected the initial figure.

The change stems from two fine details that were used to establish the rate for Prinx Chengshan (Shandong) Tire Co. Ltd. One is related to using a per-kilogram basis instead of a per-piece basis in the calculation; another refers to not using a weight average when reconstructing control numbers.
The result is what the DOC calls a significant ministerial error, which it defines as a mathematical or clerical error that “would result in a change of at least five absolute percentage points, but not less than 25% of the weighted average dumping margin.”

As it relates to this anti-dumping tariff, the recalculated rate for Prinx Chengshan is 30.36%, up from 20.87%.

Keep in mind, the anti-dumping rate is only half of the tariff equation.

There are two ongoing investigations related to truck and bus tires from China, and the two rates are combined and levied on all shipments. These anti-dumping tariffs are added to the countervailing tariffs, which are imposed to account for subsidies the companies are receiving from the Chinese government. The countervailing tariffs vary slightly by producer: 17.06% for Double Coin Holdings Ltd.; 23.38% for Guizhou Tyre Co Ltd.; and 20.22% for all other importers.

But the net effect is that most truck and bus tires from China will be assessed a 50.58% tariff.
(Double Coin’s combined rate is 47.42% and Guizhou Tyre’s combined rate is 53.74%.)

These figures represent the preliminary phase of both tariff investigations. The DOC continues to investigate and is scheduled to make its final ruling Nov. 9, and the International Trade Commission is scheduled to hold a final hearing on the investigation Jan. 24, 2017.

There is no evidence that off-the-road tire makers in India have sold products in the U.S. at less-than-fair-market prices, the U.S. Department of Commerce (DOC) says. As a result, OTR tire manufacturers in that country will not be charged anti-dumping tariffs.

That doesn’t mean the DOC’s investigation comes to an end, however. This finding, issued on Aug. 12, 2016, ends the preliminary stage, and the DOC will continue to collect evidence in the coming months before it issues its final determination on Jan. 4, 2017. If the DOC’s review of data reveals OTR tires from India have been dumped in the U.S., it could still impose tariffs.

The DOC has based its review on data provided by two tire manufacturers in India: ATC Tires Private Ltd. (a part of Alliance Tire Group) and Balkrishna Industries Ltd. Neither company has sold tires at less than fair value, the DOC said.

This negative finding also doesn’t cancel an earlier preliminary determination by the DOC that OTR tire makers in India, as well as Sri Lanka, are benefitting from subsidies from those foreign governments and should be subject to countervailing tariffs.

The U.S. Department of Commerce (DOC) says truck and bus tire manufacturers in China are dumping tires in the U.S. at less than fair market value, and those tires should be subject to tariffs of at least 20%. The tariffs are retroactive.

Chinese truck and bus tires are benefitting from government subsidies and dumping in the U.S., the DOC has found in its preliminary investigations. The DOC’s final ruling is expected Jan. 17, 2017.
The DOC announced its preliminary results Aug. 29, 2016.
In every tariff investigation, the DOC selects manufacturers to serve as mandatory respondents. Those companies then provide data and answer questions, and those figures and answers serve as the basis and gauge for the industry as a whole. Other manufacturers also may volunteer to provide their own data throughout the investigation as well.

Tire manufacturer Rate
Prinx Chengshan 20.87%
Non-selected separate rate respondents 20.87%
Rate for all other manufacturers in China 22.57%
Commerce preliminarily found Double Coin “is not eligible for a separate rate and is part of the China-wide entity.”

The higher rate for the other manufacturers in China is “due to their failure to respond to Commerce’s requests for information.”

The DOC says there was evidence that truck and bus tires were dumped in the U.S. soon after the United Steelworkers sought the investigation in January, and as a result the U.S. Customs and Border Protection will be instructed to retroactively impose the tariffs on products. The effective date will be 90 days prior to the forthcoming publication of this preliminary determination in the Federal Register. (It usually takes about a week for the Federal Register notice to be published, so the tariff retroactive date likely will be around June 7.)

These anti-dumping tariffs are on top of the countervailing tariffs the DOC preliminarily approved in June. Adding the two tariffs together determines the full penalty. For Double Coin, for example, it’s 39.63%. Review the countervailing tariff details here.

For most manufacturers, the combined rate will be above 40%.
The DOC cites U.S. Census Bureau data and says 8.9 million truck and bus tires were imported into the U.S. from China in 2015. Those tires are valued at more than $1 billion.

That brings us to the recent decision by the Department of Commerce (DOC) covering OTR tires imported from India. Indian manufacturers will not be forced to pay anti-dumping tariffs on the tires. Why? Because the DOC determined off-the-road tire makers in India have not sold products in the U.S. at less-than-fair-market prices.

I am pleasantly surprised by the decision. Too often, the decision to implement tariffs on imports, particularly from China, seems to be politically motivated. The DOC finding has renewed my faith in the system.

Hats off also go to ATC Tires Private Ltd. (a part of Alliance Tire Group) and Balkrishna Industries Ltd. The DOC says it based its review on data provided by the two Indian tire manufacturers.

The preliminary decision (more on that shortly) follows the DOC’s earlier preliminary decision to implement countervailing tariffs on OTR tires imported from India. In that case, the DOC said tire manufacturers from India and Sri Lanka were benefiting from subsidies. The tariffs range from 2.9% to 7.64%.

The final determination on the anti-dumping ruling is scheduled to be announced on Jan. 4, 2017 (for the countervailing ruling it is Oct. 28, 2016), and it could change. The DOC will continue to collect evidence in the interim.

But the DOC knows Alliance and BKT are not dumping their OTR tires into the U.S. market, and that should rule the day.

The U.S. Department of Commerce (DOC) has preliminarily determined that off-the-road tires imported from India and Sri Lanka are benefitting from subsidies, and should be subject to countervailing tariffs.

In its India investigation, Commerce calculated a subsidy rate of 4.7 % for Balkrishna Industries Ltd., and a subsidy rate of 7.64% for ATC Tires Private Ltd., a part of Alliance Tire Group. All other producers and exporters of OTR tires in India have been assigned a preliminary subsidy rate of 6.17%.
As for the Sri Lanka investigation, a subsidy rate of 2.9% has been assigned to all exporters and producers, including Camso Loadstar.

And because the DOC has determined that “critical circumstances” exist with respect to certain exporters from both countries, the tariffs are retroactive, meaning the effective date of these tariffs is already in effect. The DOC first will publish these findings in the Federal Register — likely in the next week — and then it will count back 90 days. That date will signal the start date for U.S. Customs and Border Protection to begin collecting the tariffs.

What’s next?

The DOC will continue its investigation, and will announce its final determinations on Oct. 28. There’s always a chance that ruling will be delayed however, since there are opportunities for the petitioners (Titan Tire Corp. and the United Steelworkers) to request an extension.

If the DOC does affirm its preliminary ruling at the final stage, then the U.S. International Trade Commission will vote once again to confirm that OTR tires from India and/or Sri Lanka are materially injuring, or threatening injury, to the U.S. OTR tire industry.

If either agency changes its mind, the countervailing tariffs will be canceled.

The ITC is scheduled to issue its final ruling 45 days after the DOC makes its final determinations — on Dec. 12.

Read the DOC’s fact sheet here.

Keep in mind, however, that this represents only one part of the tariff question being investigated by the DOC. The agency conducts separate investigations of whether products are benefitting from subsidies, and whether products are being dumped in the domestic market at too-low prices. The DOC is scheduled to announce the preliminary results of its dumping investigation of OTR tires on Aug. 11.

It will get slightly easier to keep track of the OTR tire tariff after that. The DOC has agreed to align the two investigations, and release its final findings in both the countervailing and anti-dumping cases on the same date in October.

Like this:

Commercial truck and bus tires imported from China are benefitting from subsidies from the Chinese government, and as a result the U.S. Department of Commerce (DOC) says those tires should be subject to tariffs up to 23.38%.

The DOC issued its preliminary determination June 28. It studied data from two importers: Double Coin Holdings Ltd. and Guizhou Tyre Co Ltd. Data from those companies then is used to calculate one tariff rate for all the other companies that ship products from China to the U.S.
For Double Coin the DOC is levying a tariff of 17.06%. The rate is 23.38% for Guizhou. All other importers will be assessed a rate of 20.22%.

These figures represent only one half of the overall tariff equation. The DOC also is investigating whether the imported products are being dumped in the U.S. at prices below the cost of manufacturing. The dumping investigation continues, and ultimately an anti-dumping tariff will be added to these preliminary countervailing rates. A preliminary decision in the anti-dumping case is due Aug. 26.

Final rulings in both the countervailing and anti-dumping investigations are due Nov. 10, 2016.

The DOC also found that critical circumstances exist “with respect to one exporter of truck and bus tires from China.” As a result, U.S. Customs and Border Protection will collect the duties retroactively for Guizhou Tyre Co. Ltd. dating back to 90 days prior to the publication of this ruling in the Federal Register.

Two weeks ago the DOC issued preliminary rates for its other ongoing tire investigation — for off-the-road tires manufactured in Sri Lanka and India.

Like this:

If the process that lead to the imposition of tariffs hasn’t left you confused already, this might do the trick. Importers of tires from China aren’t being billed for both the anti-dumping (AD) and countervailing (CVD) duties.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has confirmed importers are only paying the AD duty, plus the longstanding 4% rate.

The explanation is cumbersome, but it boils down to the fact that the tariffs on passenger and light truck tires from China began as two separate investigations — an AD investigation, and a CVD investigation. Generally, CBP says “the deadline for the preliminary determination in a CVD investigation is several months prior to the deadline in an AD investigation. As a result, a provisional measure may go into effect much earlier in a CVD proceeding than they will in a companion AD proceeding.”

Commerce issued its preliminary CVD ruling on Dec. 1, 2014. (It then amended that ruling on Dec. 30, 2014 due to ministerial errors.) It didn’t publish its AD ruling until Jan. 27, 2015.

Once those preliminary rulings were published, Commerce ordered CBP to collect the “provisional” tariffs. But CBP says, “based on the governing statutes, in accordance with the World Trade Organization agreement on subsidies and countervailing measures, provisional measures may only be in effect for a limited amount of time. Thus, the CVD provisional measures usually expire prior to provisional measures in a companion AD proceeding.”

The fact that Commerce and the U.S. International Trade Commission ultimately merged the two investigations and put them on the same timeline for final approval made the issue a bit easier to track. But it also meant the final CVD order wouldn’t come within the required statutory timeline, creating this gap.

But there’s more.

CBP says in AD cases “provisional measures may remain in effect for not more than six months.”

That means the clock is ticking on the provisional AD rates as well, as the Jan. 27 order expires on or around July 27.

Modern Tire Dealer is working on the ultimate question — when will importers and manufacturers begin to pay both tariffs?

The U.S. Department of Commerce (DOC) has affirmed its determination that certain passenger and light truck tires imported from China have benefited from market-distorting moves and unfair subsidies. The DOC has calculated subsidy rates for the affected tire manufacturers, and in nearly every instance both the anti-dumping and countervailing duty rates calculated are now higher than those originally proposed in the DOC’s preliminary ruling.

As part of its months-long countervailing investigation, the DOC says it determined “critical circumstances” exist for GITI, Yongsheng and all other producers and exporters. “‘Critical circumstances’ are found if Commerce determines that (1) there has been a surge in imports over a relatively short period of time subsequent to the filing of the petition and (2) importers knew, or should have known, that subsidization and/or dumping and injury were occuring.

“Companies which Commerce determined that critical circumstances exist will be subject to a 90-day retroactive suspension of liquidation.”

In its anti-dumping investigation, DOC says it determined ‘critical circumstances’ only existed with the ‘Others’ group listed in Modern Tire Dealer’s above chart.

What it means:

Passenger and light truck tires imported from China are subject to both the anti-dumping and countervailing duties, plus the existing 4% tariff on all consumer tires from China. Here’s a couple of scenarios:

GITI: 29.97 + 37.20 + 4 = 71.17% tariff

Cooper: 25.30 + 20.73 + 4 = 50.03% tariff

And still, even though the DOC and International Trade Administration (ITA) refer to its June 12, 2015, determination as final, there are a couple more steps in the process.

Here’s what’s next:

The separate International Trade Commission (ITC) will make its own final determination of anti-dumping and countervailing duties. That decision is scheduled for July 27, 2015.
If the ITC also makes an affirmative final determination, then the DOC will formally issue anti-dumping and countervailing tariff orders. If the ITC makes a negative determination, the investigations will be terminated.
If the ITC matches the ITA’s affirmative finding, these tariffs are locked in for at least five years, when the law would require a review to see if the dumping/subsidies are likely to resume or continue if the orders were dropped.
*Exporters in the ‘Separate rate companies’ categories of the anti-dumping ruling: